links (such as SimilarityLinks) • adding "Hebbian weights" to other links (such as SimilarityLinks) • implicitly interpreting other links (such as SimilarityLinks) as HebbianLinks Further, these strategies may potentially be used together. There are some obvious semantic relationships to be used in interpreti

licit low-strength SimilarityLinks in the system in these cases, is obviously much cheaper than using them for all cases. We've been talking about SimilarityLinks, but the approach is more broadly applicable. Any symmetric link type can be dealt with about the same way. For instance, it might be useful to kee

ch one denoting a "sense" of the word. The clusters are defined by the following relationships: 1. ConceptNodes within a cluster have high-strength SimilarityLinks to each other 2. ConceptNodes in different clusters have low-strength (i.e. dissimilarity-denoting) Similar- ityLinks to each other When a word is

more large, complex and tangled than even this one. In CogPrime, ECAN enforces heterarchy via building SymmetricHebbianLinks, and PLN by building SimilarityLinks, IntensionalSimilarityLinks and ExtensionalSimilarityLinks. Fur- thermore, these various link types reinforce each other. PLN control is guided by im

ar more large, complex and tangled than even this one. In CogPrime, ECAN enforces heterarchy via building SymmetricHebbianLinks, and PLN by building SimilarityLinks, IntensionalSimilarityLinks and ExtensionalSimilarityLinks. Fur- thermore, these various link types reinforce each other. PLN control is guided by im